The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-08-2016, 01:58 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-08-2016 01:06 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(05-08-2016 12:51 PM)u196533 Wrote:  The Law of Thermo are mathematically proven and are considered inviolate.

Yeah. Under the assumption of a closed system. Why you think we are in a closed system? 'Cause your little peabrain can't imagine an open one?

Another idiot that thinks that Thermodynamics does not apply to open systems. That has been explained and debunked at least twice already on this thread. If you can't follow the conversation, please don't interrupt it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2016, 02:03 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-08-2016 01:11 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(05-08-2016 01:06 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Yeah. Under the assumption of a closed system. Why you think we are in a closed system? 'Cause your little peabrain can't imagine an open one?

He doesn't understand that the earth is NOT a closed system. Energy is added from the sun.

He also doesn't understand that we are not completely certain that the universe itself is a closed system. Energy may be leaving through black holes or be added through other sources.

For about the 10th time, please take 5 minutes to google the Gibbs Free energy equation. That should convince you of the fundamental concept upon which my argument is based:
Chemical reactions in which energy is increased and entropy decreased will not happen spontaneously. When they do occur, an outside influence is at work. The resulting product is somewhat unstable and will tend to revert ASAP.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2016, 02:05 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-08-2016 01:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-08-2016 12:31 PM)u196533 Wrote:  It is not a preconceived conclusion. I used to think it was possible, but changed my mind as the data rolled in over the years.
There is nothing in the literature to describe HOW simple chemical systems developed self-preservation.

There is nothing in the literature because they didn't. That idea appears unique to you.

There is nothing in the literature because nobody has an answer. Self preservation is assumed, but never explained. It is intuitive in a sentient being, but inexplicable in a primitive one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2016, 02:12 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-08-2016 01:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-08-2016 01:03 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  There is no such thing as chemical evolution. Once again you are showing a complete lack of understanding.

Living creatures evolve. This fact is built into the definition of a living being.

Some theories of evolution can be applied to inorganic systems, but it is not precisely the same thing.

I suggest you reconsider that position. It is necessary that there was for abiogenesis to have occurred.

Please tell me you understand that is a classic example of circular reasoning.

You start with the conclusion that abiogenesis occurred naturally.
Then since chemical evolution is necessary for abiogenesis, it HAD to have occurred since abiogenesis occurred.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2016, 02:14 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-08-2016 01:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-08-2016 12:51 PM)u196533 Wrote:  The Law of Thermo are mathematically proven and are considered inviolate.

Which he invokes when it's convenient.
Yet when it's not convenient to invoke science, he's perfectly comfortable invoking magic, ("supernatural").

Provide a scientific explanation. I've been waiting but only one or 2 of you have even attempted to discuss this on a scientific level.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2016, 02:19 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-08-2016 01:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-08-2016 12:57 PM)u196533 Wrote:  I don't disagree. However, if you really think through the abiogenesis narrative, that must have occurred at some point in the process.
That dichotomy IS my point.

Then you are flat out wrong. Chemicals do not, and can not, exhibit self-preservation.
There is no self to preserve.
It's just chemistry.

So you take the position that trillions of chemical reactions were provided a Goldilocks environment for over hundreds of thousands of years in which they were force fed energy. Each step increased their energy and lowered their entropy making them more and more unstable. Even though they were in a harsh unstable environment they continued along that process without breaking down into their constituents as chemistry would dictate.
Think it through.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2016, 02:43 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-08-2016 02:14 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(05-08-2016 01:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Which he invokes when it's convenient.
Yet when it's not convenient to invoke science, he's perfectly comfortable invoking magic, ("supernatural").

Provide a scientific explanation. I've been waiting but only one or 2 of you have even attempted to discuss this on a scientific level.

You yourself disqualify yourself from any scientific discussion. When you think you have no other explanation, you invoke magic.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
05-08-2016, 02:52 PM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2016 03:19 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-08-2016 02:05 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(05-08-2016 01:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is nothing in the literature because they didn't. That idea appears unique to you.

There is nothing in the literature because nobody has an answer. Self preservation is assumed, but never explained. It is intuitive in a sentient being, but inexplicable in a primitive one.

No one has an answer, as no one (except you ... the classic definition of a nut case/insane person ... i.e. someone who thinks he's special, and NO ONE else agrees with you), thinks it's an issue. or needs an answer. It's a red herring. A false issue. You have STILL not defined what a "sentient being" is, and where the boundaries are, and who has a "mind".)
Insects have evolved self-preservation. You actually think insects have "minds" and are sentient beings ?
http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/O_Ruepp...w_2012.pdf

Laugh out load ... Laugh out load

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
05-08-2016, 03:25 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-08-2016 02:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-08-2016 02:14 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Provide a scientific explanation. I've been waiting but only one or 2 of you have even attempted to discuss this on a scientific level.

You yourself disqualify yourself from any scientific discussion. When you think you have no other explanation, you invoke magic.

Well yeah, because, you know, "A magic man in the sky said "Abracadabra" and it just happened" is so much more plausible than any scientific explanation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
05-08-2016, 03:37 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-08-2016 02:52 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-08-2016 02:05 PM)u196533 Wrote:  There is nothing in the literature because nobody has an answer. Self preservation is assumed, but never explained. It is intuitive in a sentient being, but inexplicable in a primitive one.

No one has an answer, as no one (except you ... the classic definition of a nut case/insane person ... i.e. someone who thinks he's special, and NO ONE else agrees with you), thinks it's an issue. or needs an answer. It's a red herring. A false issue. You have STILL not defined what a "sentient being" is, and where the boundaries are, and who has a "mind".)
Insects have evolved self-preservation. You actually think insects have "minds" and are sentient beings ?
http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/O_Ruepp...w_2012.pdf

Laugh out load ... Laugh out load

Actually every person with enough knowledge of science with whom I have discussed this at least agrees that I have a valid point. Most agree with my conclusion, some just say, " who knows"

It is debate-bale whether insects have minds. Some exhibit very complex behavior. A clear example of this is bees. Their behavior, including their famous waggle dance, leads some to think that they really are beings with experiences, that is, they are conscious.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: